Final Decision and Order

BEFORE THE CANNABIS CONTROL DIVISION
FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE MATTER OF:
Bliss Farm, LLC d/b/a Love 420 d/b/a/Grown Farm, Case No. 2023-012
License Nos. CCD-2023-0138; CCD-VICE-2023-0040; and
CCD-VICE-2022-0061
Respondent.
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing
Department (the “Department”) for consideration and decision on December 20, 2023, upon
completion of an evidentiary hearing held on October 19, 2023, in Court Room 2 of the Seventh
Judicial District Court House, 903 5th St., Estancia, NM 87106; the State of New Mexico having
been represented at the hearing by Cannabis Control Division (“Division”) Counsel, Robert Sachs
(“Administrative Prosecutor”); Respondent Bliss Farm, LLC d/b/a Love 420 d/b/a Grown Farms
having been represented by Adam D. Oakey, 500 17th St. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104; and the
duly appointed Hearing Officer Max Shepherd (“Hearing Officer”) having timely submitted to the
Department a written report setting forth his findings of fact, in accordance with 61-1-7(A) NMSA
1978, of the Uniform Licensing Act, the Department issues the following:
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
On August 14, 2023, Clay Bailey, Deputy Superintendent of the Regulation and Licensing
Department (RLD) for the State of New Mexico, acting under the authority of Linda Trujillo, then
Superintendent of the RLD, issued a Notice of Contemplated Action (“NCA”) upon a finding of
probable cause that the Respondents had violated the following provisions of the Cannabis
Final Decision and Order

Page 1 of 15
Regulation Act (“Act”), NMSA 1978, §§26-2C-1 to -42 (2021) and the New Mexico
Administrative Code (“NMAC”):
1. Non-compliance with Local and State Laws in violation of 16.8.2.8 (A) NMAC;
2. No Usage of Required Track and Trace Software in violation of 16.8.2.8 (J) NMAC;
3. Improper Record of Testing in violation of 16.8.2.40 (G)(1)(d) NMAC;
4. Improper Security and Limited Access Requirements in violation of 16.8.2.10 NMAC;
5. Improper Safety and Health Requirements in violation of 16.8.2.27 (F) NMAC;
6. Non-Operational Digital Surveillance System in violation of 16.8.2.10 (D)-(G) NMAC;
7. No Security Alarm System in violation of 16.8.2.10 (A)-(C) NMAC;
8. No Cultivation Plan in violation of 16.8.2.27 (B) NMAC;
9. No Lighting Diagram in violation of 16.8.2.27 (C) NMAC;
10. No Pest Management Plan in violation of 16.8.2.27 (D) NMAC;
11. Improper Chain of Custody Procedures in violation of 16.8.2.12 NMAC;
12. No Employee Training Materials Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.26 (B)(1) NMAC;
13. No Employee Food Handler’s Cards in violation of 16.8.2.26 (B)(2) NMAC;
14. No Recall Plan Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.11 NMAC;
15. No Remediation Plan Onsite in violation 16.8.2.26 NMAC;
16. No Cannabis Wastage Plan Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.27 (E) NMAC; and
17. No Required Scales Present Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.27 (A)(4) NMAC.
The Respondent timely filed a request for hearing.
HEARING
Exhibits:

Page 2 of 15
The Division tendered the following pre-marked exhibits some of which were withdrawn
without renumbering the remaining exhibits that were admitted:
1. A copy of Bliss Farm, LLC’s Cannabis Producer’s License No. CCD-2023-0138;
2. A copy of Love 420’s Vertically Integrated Cannabis Establishment License, No. CCD-
VICE-2023-0040;
3. A copy of Grown Farm, LLC’s Vertically Integrated Cannabis Establishment License,
No. CCD-VICE-2022-0061;
4. A copy of Bliss Farm’s Cannabis Producer’s license application;
5. A copy of the Love 420’s Vertical Integrated Cannabis Establishment license
application;
6. A copy of the Grown Farm’s Vertical Integrated Cannabis Establishment license
application;
7. A copy of the Production Facility Inspection Checklist prepared 6/12/2023 by Charles
Nuanes following an inspection of Respondents’ facility at 102 Howell Rd., Estancia,
NM. 26 violations of the Act and the NMAC were found during this inspection.
8. A copy of a Track and Trace printout of the bulk inventory, sales, transfers, manifests,
and quality assurance reports Respondent Love 420 was required to complete under its
manufacturer license from 4/01/2022 to 9/21/2023. [A review of these printouts shows
that Respondent Love 420 did not enter any information in any of these track and trace
categories under its manufacturer license during this period.]
9. A copy of a Track and Trace printout of the bulk inventory, sales, transfers, manifests,
and quality assurance reports Respondent Love 420 was required to complete under its
retail license from 4/01/2022 to 9/21/2023. [A review of these printouts shows that

Page 3 of 15
Respondent Love 420 did not enter any information in any of these track and trace
categories under its retail license during this period.]
10. Withdrawn by the Division.
12. A copy of the Track and Trace printout of the bulk inventory, sales, transfers, manifests,
and quality assurance reports that Respondent Grown Farm, LLC was required to
complete under its production license from 4/1/2022 to 9/21/2023. [A review of these
printouts shows that Respondent Grown Farm, LLC did not enter any information in
any of these track and trace categories under its production license during this period.]
13. A copy of the Track and Trace printout of the bulk inventory, sales, transfers,
manifests, and quality assurance reports that Respondent Grown Farm, LLC was
required to complete under its manufacturer license from 4/1/2022 to 9/21/2023. [A
review of these printouts shows that Respondent Grown Farm, LLC did not enter any
information in any of these track and trace categories under its manufacturer license
during this period.]
14. A copy of the Track and Trace printout of the bulk inventory, sales, transfers, manifests,
and quality assurance reports that Respondent Grown Farm, LLC, was required to
complete under its retail license from 4/1/2022 to 9/21/2023. [A review of these
printouts shows that Respondent Grown Farm, LLC, did not enter any information in
any of these track and trace categories under its retail license during this period.]
15. A photograph of Respondents’ green houses in Estancia.
16. Copies of photographs of Respondents’ growing facilities in Estancia.

Page 4 of 15
19. Copies of a photograph of cannabis plants hung up to dry in one of Respondents’
greenhouses along with photographs of trimmed buds laid out to dry prior to packaging.
20. Copies of photographs of areas in Respondents’ facilities where people had apparently
been cooking food, living, and leaving trash.
21. Copies of photographs of a small electric hot water heater, unsecured CO2 containers,
an exposed electrical panel and wiring, and a propane-fired wok all located in
Respondents’ facilities.
22. A copy of the Notice of Contemplated Action upon which this hearing was based.
23. A copy of the Petition for a Preliminary Injunction that had been prepared for filing.
24. A copy of the CCD’s post-hearing Production Facility Inspection Checklist of
Respondents’ facility dated 10/19/2023. A review of this reports establishes that 19
violations of the Act and NMAC still existed some 4 months after the initial inspection
in June of 2023.
The Respondent did not tender any exhibits.
Witnesses:
1. The Division called one witness, Compliance Officer Nick Mourning.
2. The Respondent did not call any witness.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Department makes these Findings of Fact:
1. During opening statements counsel for the Respondents represented to the court that
the Respondents had corrected virtually every violation cited in the NCA. Based upon these
representations the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to discuss

Page 5 of 15
settling the case. After discussing this possibility, the parties agreed to proceed with the
hearing so the parties could put their evidence and arguments on the record. However, the
parties also agreed that they would reconvene the hearing after a team of CCD compliance
officers had re-inspected the Respondents’ facilities if a re-inspection did not lead to
settlement of the case and it was necessary to introduce additional evidence.
2. Exhibit 24, which was admitted without objection, is the re-inspection report prepared
by compliance officers Charles Nuanes and Wellington Guzman. The report clearly
establishes that 19 violation of the Act and NMAC still existed as of 10/19/2023, immediately
after the hearing had been adjourned, and that Respondents’ representations as to the steps
they had taken to bring their operation into compliance were contrary to fact. Based on this
evidence the CCD indicated to the Respondents through an email that the CCD was not
interested in pursuing a settlement of the case. In response, the Respondents did not tender
any further evidence, and Respondents declined the offer of an opportunity to submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; no further hearing on the matter was held.
3. The first witness called by the Division was Nick Mourning. Mr. Mourning testified
that he supervised all compliance officers working for CCD and reviewed all compliance
officer’s reports.
4. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 7 as a Production Facility Inspection Report prepared
by Charles Nuanes and Wellington Guzman on 6/12/ 2023 after inspecting Respondents’
facility. The inspection report identified 26 violations of the Act and NMAC. The inspectors
also observed approximately 50,000 plants growing on Respondents’ facility.
5. Mr. Mourning testified that all licensees are required to accurately report all cannabis
products “from seed to sale” in the Track and Trace system, also known as BioTrack.

Page 6 of 15
6. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 8 as a true and accurate copy of the BioTrack printout
related to Respondent Love 420’s manufacturer license from 4/1/2022 to 9/21/2023, a period
of approximately 17 months. This report should have tracked all Bulk Inventory reported, all
sales, all transfers of cannabis products, all sales or purchase manifests, and all quality
assurance tests performed during this period by this licensee. Mr. Mourning also testified
that a licensee like Love 420 is required to have all cannabis products tested before any
cannabis product is sold or transferred.
7. As Mr. Mourning testified and as Exhibit 8 clearly shows, Respondent Love 420 failed
to report any of the required information related to its regulated manufacturer license
activities in any of the identified BioTrack categories during this period.
8. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 9 as a true and accurate printout of the BioTrack
reports related to Respondent Love 420’s retail license from 4/1/2022 to 9/21/2023, a period
of approximately 17 months. This report should have tracked all Bulk Inventory reported, all
sales, all transfers of cannabis products, all sales or purchase manifests, and all quality
assurance tests ordered during this period. However, as Mr. Mourning testified and as
Exhibit 9 clearly shows, Respondent Love 420 failed to report any of the required
information related to its regulated retail license activities in any of the identified BioTrack
categories during this 17-month period.
reports related to Respondent Grown Farm’s production license from 4/1/2022 to 9/21/2023,
a period of approximately 17 months. This report should have tracked all Bulk Inventory
reported, all sales, all transfers of cannabis products, all sales or purchase manifests, quality
assurance tests ordered during this period.

Page 7 of 15
10. Specifically, Mr. Mourning testified that since this Exhibit related to Respondent
Grown Farm’s production license the report should have contained the number of plants
growing, the number of flowering plants, the number of vegetative plants, the number of
plants out to wastage, etc.
11. Mr. Mourning testified that based on the inspection of Respondent’s production
facility he expected to see approximately 15,000 mature plants listed in Exhibit 12 and up to
15,000 vegetative plants listed.
12. However, as Mr. Mourning testified and as Exhibit 12 clearly shows, Respondent
Grown Farm failed to report any of the required information related to its regulated cannabis
production license activities in any of the identified BioTrack categories in Exhibit 12 during
this 17-month period.
reports related to Respondent Grown Farm’s manufacturing license from 4/1/2022 to
9/21/2023, a period of approximately 17 months. This report, like those referenced above,
should have tracked all Bulk Inventory reported, all sales of Respondent Grown Farm’s
manufacturing license activity, as well as all transfers of cannabis products, all sales or
purchase manifests and all quality assurance tests ordered during this period. As Mr.
Mourning testified and as Exhibit 13 clearly shows, Respondent Grown Farm completely
failed to report any of the required information related to its cannabis manufacturing license
activities in any of the identified BioTrack categories during this 17-month period.
reports related to Respondent Grown Farm’s retail license from 4/1/2022 to 9/21/2023, a
period of approximately 17 months. This report should have tracked all Bulk Inventory

Page 8 of 15
reported, all sales, all transfers of cannabis, all sales or purchase manifests, and all quality
assurance tests ordered during this period. As Mr. Mourning testified and as Exhibit 14
clearly shows, Respondent failed to report any of the required information related to its
cannabis retail license in any of the identified BioTrack categories during this 17-month
period.
15. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 15 as a collection of photographs of Respondents’
facilities in Estancia, NM including photographs of the numerous green houses on the
property at Respondents’ location in Estancia and numerous greenhouses in which
Respondents were growing marijuana plants.
16. Specifically, Mr. Mourning, who testified that he had visited Respondents’ facilities in
Estancia three times over a three-month period, identified mature plants and drying plants in
these photographs.
17. Mr. Mourning also testified that he observed more plants in production during each of
his subsequent visits to Respondents’ facilities, but he did not observe any signs that
Respondents were harvesting any plants, although Exhibit 19 clearly show that harvesting
had been occurring even if not observed by Mr. Mourning.
18. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 16 as photographs of a number of greenhouses he
observed on Respondents’ property. Mr. Mourning testified that Respondents had 111
greenhouses on the property with 250 to 300 plants growing in each greenhouse. However,
not all of the greenhouses were fully planted until Mr. mourning’s third visit.
19. Mr. Mourning did not know how many plants Respondents had been permitted to
grow through their multiple licenses, but Mr. Mourning was informed by other CCD

Page 9 of 15
compliance officers that Respondents were several thousand plants over their permitted
number.
20. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 19 as photographs of harvested plants hung up to
dry in one of Respondents’ greenhouses, along with photographs of trimmed buds spread out
to dry before packaging in another of Respondents’ greenhouses.
21. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 20 as photographs of the unsafe, unsanitary and
cluttered areas on Respondents’ property. It was Mr. Mourning’s opinion that people had
clearly been preparing food and possibly living in the areas pictured. It was Mr. Mourning’s
opinion that the facility was not up to standards for producing cannabis.
22. Mr. Mourning identified Exhibit 21 as photographs of CO2 tanks that were not
properly strapped down and electrical wires that were dangerously exposed. CO2 tanks are
required to be strapped down to prevent injuries if the tanks were to fall or be knocked over.
23. At no time was any evidence presented that the Respondent had the required
Standard Operating Procedures in place or in existence.
24. On cross-examination Mr. Mourning testified that all violations on the inspection
report could be corrected or were correctable.
25. Mr. Mourning also testified that to his knowledge Respondents were licensed or
permitted to grow 20,000 plants but when he visited Respondents’ facilities Respondents
appeared to be growing 30,000 plants or 10,000 more plants than their license allowed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Department makes these Conclusions of Law:
1. The Division has jurisdiction over Respondents and the subject matter of this

Page 10 of 15
proceeding pursuant to the Cannabis Regulation Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 26-2C-1 to -42
(2021), (“CRA”), and in particular, NMSA 1978, § 26-2C-6; NMSA 1978, § 26-2C-8; and
the Uniform Licensing Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 61-1-1 to 37 (“ULA”).
2. In New Mexico, the standard of proof applied in administrative hearings, with few
exceptions, is a preponderance of the evidence. Foster v. Board of Dentistry of State of New
Mexico, 103 N.M. 776, 714 P.2d 580 citing State Department of Motor Vehicles v. Gober,
85 N.M. 457, 513, P.2d 391; Seidenberg v. New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners, 80
N.M. 135, 452 P.2d 469 (1969).
3. The Division has the burden of proving the charges against the Respondents by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Foster v. Bd. of Dentistry, 103 N.M. 776, 777, 714
P.2d 580, 581 (1986).
4. The Division followed all the notice and hearing requirements of the ULA, and in
particular the notice and opportunity to be heard requirements at NMSA 1978, §§ 61-1-3,
Opportunity for licensee or applicant to have a hearing; 61-1-4, Notice of contemplated
board action; request for hearing; notice of hearing; and 61-1-8, Rights of persons entitled
to hearing.
5. These proceedings were held pursuant to the ULA, as invoked in NMSA 1978, § 26-
2C-8 of the Cannabis Regulation Act, and the standard of evidence required under the ULA
is “the hearing office may admit any evidence and may give probative effect to evidence
that is of a kind commonly relied on by reasonably prudent people in the conduct of serious
affairs”, NMSA 1978, § 61-1-11(A).
6. Respondent appeared at the hearing pursuant to the Request for Hearing submitted to
the Division as offered in the Notice of Contemplated Action.

Page 11 of 15
7. The Division finds that based on the Exhibits admitted, including Exhibits 7 and 25 both
of which were admitted without objection, and the testimony at the hearing that the
Division has proven by a preponderance of the evidence the following violations of the Act
and the NMAC:
a) Non-compliance with Local and State Laws in violation of 16.8.2.8 (A) NMAC;
b) No Usage of Required Track and Trace Software in violation of 16.8.2.8 (J)
NMAC for a period of at least 17 months for all 30,000 plants on-site;
c) Improper Record of Testing in violation of 16.8.2.40 (G)(1)(d) NMAC;
d) Improper Security and Limited Access Requirements in violation of 16.8.2.10
NMAC;
e) Improper Safety and Health Requirements in violation of 16.8.2.27 (F) NMAC;
f) Non-Operational Digital Surveillance System in violation of 16.8.2.10 (D)-(G)
NMAC;
g) No Cultivation Plan in violation of 16.8.2.27 (B) NMAC;
h) No Lighting Diagram in violation of 16.8.2.27 (C) NMAC;
i) Improper Chain of Custody Procedures in violation of 16.8.2.12 NMAC;
j) No Employee Training Materials Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.26 (B)(1) NMAC;
k) No Employee Food Handler’s Cards in violation of 16.8.2.26 (B)(2) NMAC;
l) No Recall Plan Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.11 NMAC;
m) No Remediation Plan Onsite in violation 16.8.2.26 NMAC;
n) No Cannabis Wastage Plan Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.27 (E) NMAC; and
o) No Required Scales Onsite in violation of 16.8.2.27 (A)(4) NMAC.

Page 12 of 15
The Division also finds that the Respondents have not presented any evidence to rebut nor
sufficiently explain any of the violations cited above and the Division may, therefore, impose any
sanctions on Respondents authorized by NMSA1978 §26-2C-8(B) and 16.8.12.11(A) including
assessing civil fines and or suspending or revoking Respondents’ licenses.
ORDER
Based on these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the determination is made that
Respondent’s Licenses CCD-2023-0138; CCD-VICE-2023-0040; and CCD-VICE-2022-0061
shall be REVOKED, effective from receipt of this order via certified mail, and a civil monetary
FINE will be imposed in accordance with 16.8.12.13(B) NMAC taking into consideration each
instance of rule violation, including the 30,000 untracked cannabis plants. The total fine shall be
one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). The fine shall be due to the Division no more than ninety
(90) calendar days from receipt of this order via certified mail.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent must comply with the following
conditions:
A. Respondent shall immediately waste all cannabis and cannabis product on-site
and all cannabis and cannabis product that originated on site.
B. Respondent shall immediately cease all commercial cannabis activity defined

by the Act, except as necessary to waste all cannabis and cannabis product.
C. No later than the date of revocation, Respondent shall surrender their licenses
by certified mail to the Division. All certified mail shall be sent to 2550
Cerrillos Rd., P.O. Box 25101, Santa Fe, NM 87504, ATTN: Cannabis
Control Division. All email correspondence shall be sent to Division Counsel,
Robert Sachs at Robert.Sachs@rld.nm.gov.
D. This Order constitutes a final decision for purposes of initiating any

contemplated judicial review pursuant to the provision of the Uniform
Licensing Act, NMSA 1978 61-1-17 and NMSA 1978, 39.3-1.1. An
aggrieved party has the right to judicial review of this Order by filing a notice
of appeal under Rule 1-074 NMRA within thirty (30) days of the date of filing
the final decision. All pleadings filed with the district court must be served on
the Division’s counsel, Robert Sachs at 1209 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe,

Page 13 of 15
NM 87505, ATTN: Cannabis Control Division, and electronically via email at
Robert.Sachs@rld.nm.gov.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with the terms of this Order may result
in additional disciplinary action. If Respondent’s non-compliance constitutes acts
that are prohibited under the Department’s statute or rules, the Department may
initiate a new disciplinary action and refer that matter for administrative
prosecution, seek an injunction in District Court, or pursue other remedies as
provided by law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12/26/2023
/s/ _____________ __ _______________
Superintendent Clay Bailey Date

New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department

Page 14 of 15
JUDICIAL REVIEW
This Order constitutes a final decision for purposes of initiating any contemplated judicial review
pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act, 61-1-17 NMSA 1978, and 39-3-1.1
NMSA 1978. An aggrieved party has the right to judicial review of this Order by filing a notice of
appeal under Rule 1-074 NMRA within thirty (30) days of the date of filing of the final decision.
Any pleadings filed with the district court must be served on the Division counsel Robert Sachs at
1209 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505, ATTN: Cannabis Control Division, and
electronically via email at Robert.Sachs@rld.nm.gov.

Page 15 of 15

Final Decision and Order - Bliss Farm - Love 420 - Grown Farm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Final Decision and Order - Bliss Farm - Love 420 - Grown Farm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

BEFORE THE CANNABIS CONTROL DIVISION

FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE MATTER OF: